ChrisWeigant.com

The Trump Doctrine

[ Posted Thursday, October 17th, 2019 – 16:37 UTC ]

As I read the breaking news that Turkey has now agreed to a five-day ceasefire of its invasion into Syria, I couldn't help but think that this is yet another example of what might be called the Trump Doctrine. Unlike other presidential doctrines, however, this one works just as easily on domestic affairs as it does on foreign affairs. It's really nothing short of Trump's modus operandi, writ large.

Here is the Trump Doctrine, in a nutshell:

(1) Unilaterally create a crisis. This can be done through action, through inaction, through a random tweet, through executive orders, through a phone call or letter to a foreign leader, or through any other way, really. Take a stable situation and interject some chaos by: pulling out of an international deal with no alternative deal in place, ordering a sweeping change in U.S. governmental policy with no regard for the consequences, kowtowing to a foreign leader in some way or another, or just being as offensive as possible on Twitter.

(2) Blame everyone else for the problem. It's Obama's fault. Or Hillary's. Or Nancy Pelosi's. Or George Soros's. Or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's. Or -- always a favorite -- the blame belongs solely with the "fake news" media. Trump's finger of blame points everywhere at the same time, except in the mirror where it belongs.

(3) Make a ham-fisted attempt to solve the problem. As public opinion turns drastically against Trump's self-created crisis, Trump will flail about looking for a solution, ideally one that makes him look good and all his opponents look bad. The actual outcome doesn't bother Trump one way or another, though, just what is said about it on cable television.

(4) Bluster through the fallout, one way or another. In the best case, what normally happens is a return to the status quo ante -- the crisis situation is resolved by Trump totally reversing course, and everything essentially goes back to the way it was. In the middling case, Trump "solves" the crisis in some way that clearly leaves America worse off. But at least this gets it off the front pages for a while. In the worst case scenario, Trump's efforts to solve the crisis he singlehandedly created fails miserably, leaving America much worse off. Trump's reaction to the best case is to claim the mightiest, best, most beautiful credit ever bestowed upon any human being. Trump reacts to the middling case by claiming repeatedly that America is now better off, all evidence to the contrary. This up-is-down logic is then parroted by all his enablers until Fox News claims it is simply the only way to look at things. In the worst case, Trump shrugs his shoulders and offers up some form of: "Things happen. Whaddya gonna do? That's just the way it goes, folks."

(5) Rinse and repeat. Onward to the next self-created crisis!

Simply put, this is how Trump operates, whether it is caging children on the border, starting a disastrous trade war with China, deciding that Kim Jong Un is a swell guy (and pay no attention to all those missile tests and nuclear stockpiling he's doing in the meantime), or kowtowing to Turkey's goal of starting a war to grab Syrian land and slaughter some Kurds. It's how he handles domestic issues as well, such as unilaterally ending the protections for Dreamers, declaring white supremacists are "very fine people," shutting down the government because Trump can't build his precious wall, or firing some aide through sheer pettiness or pique.

Everything is always someone else's fault, of course. Trump creates instability and then complains loudly about how unstable everything is. His efforts to arrive at some sort of solution to the problem are often so misguided as to be laughable -- such as that letter he just wrote to the leader of Turkey, which was so juvenile that Erdogan reportedly just "threw it in the trash." Trump occasionally even agrees to a deal only to torpedo it within hours, again showing how massively unstable he truly is.

Not once has Trump actually solved any of the problems he has created. There is no new nuclear deal with Iran. There is no end to the tariff war with China. North Korea continues to stockpile nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin is ascendant in the politics of the Middle East. Europe now sees the United States as not to be trusted at all, on anything -- and it's hard to blame them, really. Children continue to be separated from their parents at our southern border. Our efforts to fight climate change have taken several large steps backwards. Immigration policy went from being Byzantine to being nothing short of absolute chaos and cruelty.

Even worse, the rest of the world now knows that Trump is an absolute pushover. All foreign leaders have to do is to stroke his ego while proclaiming they're going to do exactly what the U.S. doesn't want them to do, and Trump will likely fold like a cheap suit. Trump is so far over his head that even our enemies are laughing at us now. Our allies actually started laughing at us the day Trump took office, but if any doubts remained in the rest of the world, that puerile letter to Erdogan completely removed all such doubts.

Donald Trump now appears to be on the brink of losing control, which is a scary thing to contemplate. He's going to be impeached, which will forever stain his record in the history books, he tried to distract everyone by allowing a new war to start, and his own party is turning against him in a big way as a direct result. Along the way, he betrayed the best ally we have in the Middle East other than Israel. The damage is done, and it won't be undone for years (if not decades). Nobody is ever going to trust the word of the United States in the region for a long time to come, for a very good reason. Trump dismisses all this by blithely stating that the Islamic State, even if it reconstitutes itself, is "7,000 miles away" and that if they gain the ability to attack anyone, it'll probably be Europe so Americans shouldn't get too worried. Russia, Iran, and the Syrian government have all scored huge and unexpected victories in the past week, and Trump dismisses this as "they've got a lot of sand to play with." Trump even went out of his way to insult the Syrian Kurds who died by the thousands to achieve an American military objective in Syria. Trump is now in the: "Hey, whaddya gonna do, this stuff happens all the time, right?" phase of the cycle. The ceasefire deal he just got Turkey to agree to might save some Kurdish lives, but it still gives Erdogan everything he wanted. The Turks will hold the Syrian land they've already taken over, and once the five days are up will continue taking all the land they say they need for a "safe zone" inside the Syrian border. We're somewhere between "leaving America worse off" and "leaving America much worse off," in that list above.

What remains to be seen is whether the media has truly figured the Trump Doctrine out or not. Will they announce the ceasefire as the Trump administration triumphantly solving a problem, or will they point out that (1) this problem didn't even exist before Trump gave in to Erdogan on that phone call, and (2) even if the ceasefire holds, we're still going to be much worse off because of this Trump-created crisis.

The truly unsettling thing, after the past few weeks, is contemplating what Trump will do next. What happens when he personally gets to the "rinse and repeat" stage again? He loves to distract the media with fresher, newer crises -- he's done so for his entire presidency, really. But his last attempt clearly blew up in his face, and the impeachment hearings aren't going away any time soon. So what will Trump do next? Invade Norway? Declare California to no longer be part of the United States? Make being a Democrat illegal? The mind reels, but the only thing about the Trump Doctrine that you can say for certain is that the next one of these self-induced Trumpquakes is probably right around the corner. And it'll probably be worse than the last one.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

57 Comments on “The Trump Doctrine”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Blotus has done so many heinous things as potus, but this betrayal of the Kurds is a low among lows as it has resulted in slaughter.

    It has also, seemingly, pushed a lot of military folk into public criticism which is a good thing.

    It's also pushed #MoscowMitch into having to respond to articles of impeachment when presented - having to stop claiming he'd just ignore them.

    It lead to the now iconic photo of Nancy Pelosi standing up across the table from him, with three men to his right, all with their heads down. Evidently he preceeded or followed that moment with such hysterical invective the meeting broke up and multiple people described Blotus as having a meltdown. Of course Blotus claimed NP had the meltdown -- no one believes him.

    Polls last few days now showing 52-54% of Americans support impeachment.

    The Trump Doctrine will be his undoing.

  2. [2] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    You've summed up the Trump SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) perfectly well.

    The part that threw me was at the end:
    "What remains to be seen is whether the media has truly figured the Trump Doctrine out or not."

    What does that even mean? "Truly", like they've figured it out already but haven't really?

    The example you give of "figured out or not" is about how the outcome of the Syrian/Turkish debacle will be interpreted to the public, rather than how it will be reported. Thus by media you don't mean the reporting arm ("this happened today") but the commenting arm ("this is why what happened matters to you") - the pundits. Ah, the pundits, the commentariat, the bloggers, the op-ed writers - is that the 'media' you are talking about?

    Well, as you know, the pundits that don't like Trump have been pointing out his frauds, cheats, and childish projections for many years now. As a matter of fact, when reading your breakdown of his methods I experienced deja vu, remembering all the times since late 2015 that I've read similar analyses either by you or other perceptive and/or liberal commentators, detailing the step by step nature of his unvarying command of the national spotlight via his destruction of all political and cultural norms that are within his power to destroy.

    On the other hand the pundits that do like him, or that choose not to explain the emperor's nudity for fear of the effect on their own prestige or that of the establishment they believe they are upholding, will continue to do what they've always done: defend the president's 'solution' outright, or minimize its absurdity by normalizing it with soothing bromides about both sides have always done this, etc.

    So, is this really a question? Is this really what "remains to be seen" at the end of Trump crisis #4291? The media, like the rest of the country, long ago split into two on the Trump question. There is no unitary "Media" we can speculate about, whose perceptions or comments might change now, when they didn't for #4290, #4289, etc.

    What I would like to see is for the media's reporting divisions to clean up their acts - starting with never reporting anything the president says or tweets, on the basis that he lies too much to have any credibility left, whether he's president or not. Let his spokespeople communicate the executive's official business with us, assuming they haven't also shown themselves to be straight-out and shameless liars. To me, that kind of action ("The New York Times has reassigned its White House correspondent to other areas of coverage in the capital..."; "CNN will no longer cover the president's personal appearances..."; "The Wall Street Journal will treat the Treasury Secretary as the highest level source for news about the government's economic policies, from this point forward...") would be a much better example of what you seem to be asking for in terms of the media "truly figuring Trump out".

    Well, I can dream.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    This simply proves that ya'all STILL don't get President Trump..

    Ya'all haven't gotten President since he came down that escalator in June of 2015...

    THAT is why ya'all lose EVERY TIME when facing President Trump.. :D

    And that is why ya'all will CONTINUE to lose when facing President Trump.. :D

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump rally in Dallas marked by enthusiasm, in sharp contrast to chaos in Minneapolis
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dallas-rally-ukraine-scrutiny-intensifies

    Why is it that Dim candidates can't pull in these kinds of numbers at THEIR rallies???

    It's perfectly obvious to those who have the will to see reality and accept the facts that the enthusiasm factor is clearly on President Trump's side...

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as debates go..

    I really really REALLY want the Democrats to have more debates..

    Because every time Democrats debate, a hundred new campaign ads to re-elect President Trump are created..

    Democrats are their own worst enemies...

    All the candidates rush to the extreme Left to placate their base.. Their problem will be ONE of them will have to find their way back to the center for the General Election..

    No wonder Democrats are so desperate to impeach President Trump...

    They know they can't possibly win at the ballot box.. :D

    They have even STATED as much for the record..

    What a sad place for ya'all to be in that your own Democrats are telling you that ya'all can't win in Nov of 2020... :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Becomes A Psychodrama Of the Press

    In reality, the whole episode is nonsense, a farce. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t hold a vote on a formal impeachment inquiry because she couldn’t win the vote. If there were such an inquiry, where the Republicans called and examined witnesses and subpoenaed documents, it would collapse as quickly as the Russian collusion fraud did when former special counsel Robert Mueller stumbled through his congressional inquiry.
    https://www.nysun.com/national/impeachment-is-a-psychodrama-of-the-press/90871/

    This is why Pelosi is deathly afraid of holding an Impeachment Vote..

    She knows she is going to lose.. Even if she actually has enough votes in the House to go forward with impeachment, she knows she will lose because the GOP will tear apart the Dim's Ukraine case in no time at all..

    Once again, President Trump have maneuvered the Dumbocrats into a PERFECT lose-lose situation... :D

    One would think that Dims would have learned their lesson by now.. :D

    Thankfully, for this country and for President Trump.. They remain perfectly clueless.. :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The allegation a few weeks ago of a 30-year-old act of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which had most of the candidates screaming for his impeachment in the 24 hours before it was exposed as a completely unfounded charge, must have caused unease to many thoughtful Democrats.

    But when this stinker implodes, after they have got the faithful to the edges of their chairs and exhumed John Dean and Carl Bernstein, the bloodless assassins of Richard Nixon, and the full gallery of their unctuous homelists and pietists who demean the occupation of commentator, sensible Democrats will disembark. The best way Democrats can serve their party now is to try to get a plausible semi-moderate like Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, no world-beater but Walter Mondale in drag-she can lose with honor and dignity, and turn off the CNN-MSNBC-main network hate machine.

    Mr. Trump can’t be removed from his office; he deserves and will gain reelection on his record; the Democrats will be back — both parties always are. But the sooner the country tunes out this dishonest, evil press putschism, the better for the whole country, especially the national political news outlets themselves.

    Democrats simply have NO path to victory....

    The more rational and logical Weigantians amongst us all agree...

    President Trump will win re-election...

    It's really THAT simple...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats' debate divisions open the race to new (or old) faces

    America is divided — and so is the Democratic Party. Last night’s debate was less about the individual performances than the flexing of the various wings of the party and the tilt toward the left in the primary, despite an electorate that I believe is more moderate than its new leaders.

    Ultimately this debate reflects two fundamental weaknesses of the field. I think there is no one so far who has shown they are likely to consolidate a majority of the party, and so the most likely outcome is more debates with fewer candidates but a convention that will be decided by super-delegates and political deals. And the flip side of this weakness is that the likes of Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry and perhaps even Michele Obama have got to be thinking of getting in and trying to transcend the moderate and liberal wings of the party. They all are watching Biden, gauging whether he is strong enough to pull off a comeback or so weak that the nomination will likely fall into the hands of Warren. After this debate, they still are on the fence and the party is just as divided as ever.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/466055-mark-penn-democrats-divisions-open-race-for-a-new-or-old-face

    Democrat unity my ass... :D

    This is going to be the 1996 Presidential Election all over again.

    President Trump plays the part of Bill Clinton and a Yet To Be Named Democrat blood sacrifice plying the part of Bob Dole... :D

    And just think..

    Late 3 Nov, early 4 Nov, we can all gather here again and have fun discussing the Democrats latest shellacking.. :D

    Won't that be fun!! Won't it be grand!!! :D

    I know it will be for me.. :D

    Let's make it a pot luck... Every one bring a dish... I'll bring the Baked Crow a'la'orange and the Sour Grapes Pudding... :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Elizabeth Warren an Ideologue?
    Tuesday’s debate points to trouble for Democrats if she wins the nomination.

    But on the biggest issue, Warren nailed herself to a coercive and unpopular position. She insisted on a “Medicare for All” program that would abolish all private insurance for basic health care. And she ruled out the idea that she might pivot to a voluntary alternative—Medicare for All Who Want It—that would allow people to keep their private insurance if they preferred it. “I will not embrace a plan like ‘Medicare for all who can afford it’ that will leave behind millions of people,” the senator declared, using a pejorative term for the voluntary approach.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-ideologue-health-care-antitrust.html

    Oh please, please, PLEASE Democrats..

    Nominate Liz Warren!! :D

    I double dog dare ya'all to!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Should Heed the Lessons of 2004
    To face a monstrous Republican seeking re-election, Democrats chose a moderate, ‘electable’ Senate lifer over an insurgent from Vermont. What about this year?

    https://prospect.org/power/democrats-should-heed-the-lessons-of-2004/

    Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it..

    Whether ya'all pick 1996 or 2004, it always ends the same..

    President Trump is re-elected by a comfortable to landslide margin..

    As I have said repeatedly (some might say "ad nasuem") the Democrat Party's BEST course of action is to concede 2020 and get ready to run against a NEW GOP'er in 2024..

    The FACTS and REALITY clearly show that Democrats don't stand a chance in 2020...

    Not the least of which are quotes from DEMOCRATS themselves...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    In 2004, Democratic leadership, when facing down a bellicose demagogue with a cabal of criminals working for him, shelved a popular, medical-care-driven agenda backed by a network of grassroots organizers in favor of electability, and an “Anybody But” war cry. What proceeded was catastrophic, not just for the Democratic Party, but for the country. If you think Trump is bad in term one, a second term would be profoundly emboldening.

    Since the collapse of the New Deal order, the Democratic Party has had plenty of poor presidential cycles that have scarred its collective psyche. Mention Walter Mondale, who won only one state against an Alzheimer’s-addled Ronald Reagan in 1984, or Michael Dukakis, who got waxed by George H.W. Bush in 1988, and you’ll get shudders. The Democratic establishment vowed to learn from that history, and adjust its game plan accordingly (while falsely tarring Mondale—who ran on deficit reduction—and Dukakis as wild-eyed liberals). But 2004, whose postmortem called for more ambitious progressive policy and the abandonment of electability as a guiding principle, may be the most relevant to our current day. Unfortunately, Democrats may prove unwilling to learn the lesson.

    That's the problem with Democrats.. They always sacrifice FACTS and REALITY in favor of whatever shiny catches their eye from minute to minute...

    2020 is proving that all over again.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump Used the Options He Had in Syria

    So last week Erdogan made clear to President Trump that Turkey would begin the unilateral operation to create the buffer zone. Trump repeated the longstanding American opposition to that move, set conditions for Turkey that are designed to protect American objectives in Syria, and ordered the relocation of American Special Operations to get them out of the area of conflict.

    Shortly afterward, Trump tweeted an existential threat to Turkey’s economy, warning Turkey to stick to the conditions that Trump had set.
    https://tinyurl.com/y5kbtw7t

    When one actually considers the FACTS and reality it's hard to come up with a logical or rational reason why Democrats are hysterical about blaming President Trump for the Kurds predicament..

    A> Obama also "stabbed" the Kurds in the back..

    B> There were only a hundred or so SFs in the area..

    C>Turkey was coming anyways so all President Trump did was save American lives.. Something the Dumbocrats ALWAYS insist on when the POTUS is NOT named Donald Trump... :eyeroll:

    But, once again, FACTS and REALITY show how utterly contemptible Democrats are...

    And if President Trump had NOT evacuated the SFs and a single American soldier was killed or captured, then Dumbocrats would have screamed hysterically that President Trump left the SFs in harms way..

    It's not hard to predict Democrats actions..

    Just posit the most hysterical and moronic course of action possible and, quatloos to doughnuts, THAT is what the Dumbocrats will do...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if President Trump had NOT evacuated the SFs and a single American soldier was killed or captured, then Dumbocrats would have screamed hysterically that President Trump left the SFs in harms way..

    Proof??

    One of our own here went on and on hysterically about how President Trump was a "war monger" for retaliating against Iran for some such offense.

    When President Trump re-considered and opted NOT to retaliate, President Trump was AGAIN, attacked.. This time for NOT retaliating against Iran..

    It's clear that no matter WHAT President Trump does or doesn't do, the hysterical Trump/America haters are going to attack him for it..

    That is the so-called "logic" of Trump/America haters..

    :eyeroll:

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    You reliably turn out superior journalism, but this entry is one of the best.

    Yesterday I spent a dollar on stamps and urged my two Republican reps to resign for gross dereliction of duty. I was going to incorporate your recent talking points, but failure to live up to their oath of office (uphold The Constitution) seemed a sufficient summary. I pointed out there is life after politics. Spend more time with your family. In the open air, not under a Trumpian Rock. Avoid the worry of waiters spitting in your food. I didn't include the last bit, but it was implied. :)

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems that Trump and the Dems have more in common than they let on.

    The Trump Doctrine is identical to the Democratic playbook.

    Create a crisis (offer Hillary so Trump is elected), blame everyone else (Russians, Stein voters,etc.), make a ham-fisted attempt to solve the problem (empty promises of future legislation that will never happen), bluster through the fallout (passing legislation in the house that will not become law) and rinse and repeat (see Democratic candidates for 2020).

    And of course the media follows the same SOP as evidenced by the BLATHER, rinse and repeat in this article.

    Stop pretending the Democrats are any different than the Republicans in any way that really matters. Stop pretending the show is real.

    Start informing citizens aboot real alternatives to the big money controlled candidates in both parties instead of perpetuating the lies and treating the lies as if they were true.

    Expand reality from my comments here into the actual articles.

    Don't just Get Real, CW.

    Get FUCKING Real.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    the smoking example demonstrates the trouble with "simple" logic. unqualified logical operations applied to complex systems tend to ignore any data external to the system.

    No.. The smoking example demonstrates the folly of the Global Warming fanatics that "science" is a popularity contest and that, when there is consensus (even the faux consensus of the global warming fanatics) then that means the science is "settled"..

    REAL science is ***NEVER*** settled..

    But hay.. I am a fair guy..

    Give me a Global Warming prediction or model that has EVER been accurate..

    In the alternative give me a global warming fanatic who practices what they preach??

    You can't on either point...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    You reliably turn out superior journalism, but this entry is one of the best.

    Didn't you say that CW's LAST commentary was the "best"...

    And I do believe you said that the commentary before THAT was also the "best"...

    The facts surely indicate that yer simply a brown-noser... :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    You're going to need a lot more than one dollar's worth of stamps to cover all the politicians from both CMPs and in the media that are guilty of gross dereliction of duty, including CW.

    If this article is the best of superior journalism then journalism is in even worse shape than our political system.

    Garbage in- garbage out.

    Is that Lady Liberty standing next to the Indian looking at the garbage with a tear in her eye?

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Harris

    REAL?

    You wouldn't know REAL if it gave you a nose tweak, poked you in both eyes and slapped your cheeks. Real is that you have pimped your product for many years and you have no buyers. You don't even seem to have two other stooges to keep you company. Get professional help.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005

    When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

    Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

    The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.
    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html

    Once again.. REAL science.. and REAL FACTS prove that global warming is a joke...

    NOAA got rid of the garbage and the tweaking and the adjustments and what did the FACTS show??

    No Warming...

    OUCH!!! That's just GOTTA hurt!!! :D

    I know, I know.. No one wants to address the FACTS... Ya'all are happy with the bullshit and the lies..

    The funny thing is, if ya'all REALLY believed the global warming garbage, you would ditch your computers and your tablets and your cars and everything else that causes carbon to be spewed in the air..

    But, of course ya'all won't do that.. Ya'all just spout off the BS yer fed and go merrily on yer carbon spewing ways... :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You wouldn't know REAL if it gave you a nose tweak, poked you in both eyes and slapped your cheeks. Real is that you have pimped your product for many years and you have no buyers. You don't even seem to have two other stooges to keep you company. Get professional help.

    And here I thought Democrats don't attack other Democrats with personal attacks and such..

    Yes, I do believe someone here said that..???

    Hmmmmmmm...

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I know a naked emperor when I see one.

    I have promoted my idea for many years which is what a person with an idea is supposed to do.

    Many ideas (especially ones that challenge the status quo) do not catch on for a long time. Some never catch on, but some eventually do.

    The stooges are all working for the big money interests.

    I am seeking professional help.

    For example, CW and Ralph Nader are what passes for professionals these days.

    So I continue to promote my idea and challenge them to behave as true professionals in the hope that at some point my idea will catch on.

    And I encourage them to stop being part of the "three stooges" (Democrats, Republicans and media spreading the lies) and stop offering only Snap, Crackle and Poop as part of a balanced news diet.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I'm not sure if you identifying me as one of them bothers me or the other commenters here more. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not sure if you identifying me as one of them bothers me or the other commenters here more. :D

    Nope.. One of the other commenters was putting on aires on how noble and un-selfish Democrats are in that they ONLY discuss policies and NEVER stoop to personal attacks..

    I simply pointed out that STIG does not live up to that high and mighty bullshit...

    Ooops Did I say "bullshit"?? I meant nobility.. Yea.. THAT'S what I meant.. :D

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    oustanding analysis. the only thing that would make it even better would be a visual timeline of all these stages of various crises from 2017 to present.

    and also pie. why oh why do you not devote a column to pie-based voting? over 90% of the population like pie, so why don't you live up to your journalistic ethics for once and give pie the attention it deserves?

    JL

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    interesting image!

    i resemble that remark
    ~curly

    https://youtu.be/lCNzFn_Oxds

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    oustanding analysis. the only thing that would make it even better would be a visual timeline of all these stages of various crises from 2017 to present.

    Just like a timeline of Obama's screw-ups would be equally interesting..

    "The cops acted stupidly"

    "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin"

    "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

    Not to mention Fast/Furious, Holder in Contempt Of Congress, etc etc etc..

    Yep.. Be fascinating.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Pie is a nice dessert to offer.

    But it really isn't the point when CW is offering half a slice of old bread, ketchup as a vegetable and a thin slice of spam as the main course.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump in Dallas: I'm Not Losing Texas
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/18/trump_in_dallas_im_not_losing_texas__141533.html

    Anyone who thinks that Democrats have a chance in Texas is simply deluding themselves..

    ALL the Dem candidates are on record as stating their ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuels..

    Yea.. THAT'S gonna sit well with Texans.. :^/

    And their blatant and emphatic stance on that, recorded for posterity, will eliminate ANY possibility of the chosen one being able to walk it back for the General election..

    Democrats candidates are simply DESTROYING any hope they may have of appealing to the people who really decide these elections..

    The Independents and NPAs...

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NY22-"I won't even subject you to the horrors of our Three Stooges ward." - Dr. Julius Hibbert, Springfield physician.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset' groomed to ensure Trump reelection

    Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection.

    The former secretary of state pushed the theory on the Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

    Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states.

    "They are also going to do third party again," Clinton said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

    "She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.

    "They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it's going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it."
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hillary-clinton-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-a-russian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election

    Hillary Clinton has gone full blow SENILE..

    Gabbard is a "Russian asset".. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset"...

    Hillary Clinton has gone bye-bye... :D

    The lights are on, but there just ain't no one home...

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    New word: Trumpitude (noun)

    Definition: A variation of turpitude, where an act of depravity and wickedness by a president is poorly deflected by a groveling crony, who is subsequently thrown under a bus during the next news cycle.

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[27],

    if you make one for obama, i'll read it. somehow i think CW would do a better job though.

    JL

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hillary Clinton has gone full blow..

    Waitaminute. I subscribe to that particular theory. Jill Stein was a Russian asset, and got more votes in Wisconsin than the margin of error between Hillary and Trump.

    Similarly, Gabbard has also found a way to warm the hearts of Russiaphiles.

    Careful who you call SENILE, bub.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Waitaminute. I subscribe to that particular theory. Jill Stein was a Russian asset, and got more votes in Wisconsin than the margin of error between Hillary and Trump.

    Similarly, Gabbard has also found a way to warm the hearts of Russiaphiles.

    Whatever you say, Senator McCarthy.... :D

  36. [36] 
    dsws wrote:

    [35] of the previous thread:
    And yet, it struck a nerve so much that you DID respond to it.

    Same one it does regardless of the topic. Topics come and go, but the irritation is cumulative. I was responding instead of ignoring this time, because you had been reasonable about cutting down the mass cut-and-paste posts.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jill Stein was a Russian asset, and got more votes in Wisconsin than the margin of error between Hillary and Trump.

    Let's employ Occam's Razor..

    Which is more plausible...

    A red-blooded American who hasn't show the most minutest indication that she is a Russian Agent is actually a Russian Agent....

    OR

    Or Russian Intelligence sayin' Hay.. Let's fuck with the minds of moronic gullible Americans and give a little inkling of support for Stein and watch our Useful Idiots chase their tails in circles...

    I am reminded of a sci fi short story I read as a kid.. Aliens wanting to perform sociological experiments on earthlings would plunge an entire neighborhood into darkness and insure that the earthlings were trapped in that neighborhood.... Once panic set in, the aliens would turn the power back on in selected houses and watch earthlings attack other earthlings out of fear and prejudice...

    The aliens got a real kick out of it, setting human against human..

    Just like the Russians are getting a big kick out of setting American against American...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Same one it does regardless of the topic. Topics come and go, but the irritation is cumulative. I was responding instead of ignoring this time, because you had been reasonable about cutting down the mass cut-and-paste posts.

    Fair enough..

    I have a buttload of real work ahead of me, so ya'all will get a break on the FTP this weekend as well.. :D

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[37]
    i agree with the reasoning, except perhaps the ocam's razor part. the two hypotheses require an equal number of prerequisite assumptions, but it does seem a lot more likely that jill stein is a red herring than a red spy.
    JL

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    but it does seem a lot more likely that jill stein is a red herring than a red spy.

    Nice turn of the phrase there.. I guess you really are a poet.. And your feet show it...

    Because they're Longfellows ar har ar har ar har

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how the Left is horrified at a parody video where President Trump acts out a scene from The Kingsman movie that involves a church massacre...

    And then the Left puts out this garbage and THAT is perfectly acceptable..

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/donald-trump-bound-abused-appears-in-dhvanis-times/

    I do have to say one thing though...

    Nice tits....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Nice tit - ties..."
    -Sakamoto, TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:
  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Just like a timeline of Obama's screw-ups would be equally interesting...

    "The cops acted stupidly"

    "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin"

    "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."

    Are you honestly suggesting that Obama had any part in causing the Trevon Martin shooting just so he could comment on it? Not only did Obama not play any role in creating the first two issues, he didn’t try to sweep in and claim he was solving them either!

    And Obama apologized for saying “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor,” and admitted that while he believed it was the truth when he said it, he was incorrect for believing that!

    CW is talking about “emergencies” that Trump has created so that he could be the person who saved us and look like a hero. Like someone who sets his neighbor’s house on fire so that he can run in and rescue them and be seen as a hero for his “bravery”. The problem is that Trump is too inept to ever truly fix the problems he creates — he starts the fire, but he only rescues one kid and the rest of the family is killed.

    Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, though, but as usual you failed! Screw ups are not what was being discussed, as Trump did these things intentionally so that he could claim that he saved the nation. It must be extremely tiresome having to constantly spin Trump’s actions to fit the limited number of Obama “whataboutisms “ provided for you to use...which explains why you have to constantly repeat them when they have no similarities to what Trump has done at all.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    and admitted that while he believed it was the truth when he said it

    Which is complete and utter bullshit. It was well-documented at the time that Obama was briefed SEVERAL TIMES that up to 15 million Americans would have to give up the plans they liked for TrainWreckCare plans..

    Obama lied to the American people and KNEW it was a lie when he said it..

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The funny thing is, if ya'all REALLY believed the global warming garbage, you would ditch your computers and your tablets and your cars and everything else that causes carbon to be spewed in the air..

    No, the funny thing is that you believe you are proving a point when you make such idiotic statements. I know that the sun can cause skin cancer, but I still go outside. You spew carbon dioxide into the air with every breath, but no one has called for your head. There are plenty of people who have switched to electric and electric/hybrid vehicles. We use plastic, but we also recycle as much as possible.

    You refer to people who accept the science behind climate change as “fanatics”. Yet you insist that if we don’t act like fanatics, we don’t truly believe it to be true.

    It’s strange that BP, Chevron, and Exxon all accept that climate change is real, but you aren’t attacking them for their acknowledging it. Nor do you attack the military for claiming climate change poses some real threats to our national security.

    It is clear that you don’t have a problem with people accepting the science, you are only interested in trolling people here. Color me shocked!

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Which is complete and utter bullshit. It was well-documented at the time that Obama was briefed SEVERAL TIMES that up to 15 million Americans would have to give up the plans they liked for TrainWreckCare plans..

    PROOF? Of course you don’t because this is a lie. It also makes no sense. Why would Obama knowingly lie about something that he’d have to walk back the moment it became clear he was lying? And before you ask why I believe this for Obama and not Trump, it is because Trump never owns up to saying something that was untrue.

    The ACA was written to allow insurance companies to keep all of their existing plans and only required them to offer the new ones. The government could not force the insurance companies to switch their customers to plans that offered better coverage and would be cheaper, the customer had to do that on their own. It wasn’t until insurance companies realized that they could force their policy holders to switch to even worse plans that cost more that they screwed their own customers and made Obama look like a liar.

    This is the first time that I can recall you using this argument, which I can only assume was to deflect from the point I made in my previous post that you were moving the goal posts. You cannot defend the against the allegations, so you attempt to deflect. Again, nice try — but you failed!

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [47}

    it's kinda ridiculous to say "You spew CO2 into the air with every breath . . ."

    After all, that CO2 WAS ALREADY iN THE AIR when you inhaled it! You are NOT making CO2 in your lungs!

  50. [50] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki [49]

    C6H12O6 + 6 O2 ? 6 CO2 + 12 H2O + 36 ATP

    But then you probably knew that and are just trolling. At least I hope so...

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    BB

    PDQ39+19MDF+ 13LOL+WTF squared

    No, actually I have absolutely no idea what either one of those means, but please don't tell me that we are manufacturing CO2 in our lungs. I do know better than that. We inhale air, extract a little Oxygen, and exhale the leftovers, right?

  52. [52] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki -

    Cellular respiration. Your cells combine glucose and oxygen then output CO2, water and adenosine triphosphate (ATP - energy for cells).

    Your lungs do not create CO2 but your body as a whole does...

  53. [53] 
    dsws wrote:

    Oh good lord. Yes, we make CO2 in every cell in our bodies.

  54. [54] 
    dsws wrote:

    C6H12O6 is glucose, the simple sugar used in the most basic reaction of metabolism.

    O2 is molecular oxygen, the stuff we need to get from the air.

    ATP is adenosine triphosphate, the basic unit of energy for most things our bodies do that need energy.

    And the question mark is what happens when an arrow to the right gets copy/pasted into a plain-text format that doesn't recognize it.

    Food plus oxygen becomes carbon dioxide plus water plus energy.

    (The full reaction would describe the directly usable energy as Pi + ADP --> ATP. An inorganic phosphate gets added to adenosine diphosphate to yield adenosine triphosphate.)

  55. [55] 
    dsws wrote:

    Dang, subscripts don't work. The i in Pi is supposed to be a subscript.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    there are two logical flaws in the argument that climate models haven't made accurate predictions.

    the first is that one doesn't have to make accurate predictions for the data one collects to be valid. it's perfectly rational for someone to take accurate data and use it to make incorrect predictions or draw incorrect conclusions. that's normal in every branch of science except perhaps physics. there are simply too many external factors to expect accurate predictions, even from valid data. over the past century there has been dramatically more overall heat absorbed by the planet than at any time in known history. that much is unequivocal and uncontested.

    the second logical flaw is that climate models are being held to a non-scientific standard of accuracy. while no model has yet managed a precise prediction over a short time-period, the accuracy regarding longer spans has steadily improved over the decades since the science started being conducted.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    29

    ALL the Dem candidates are on record as stating their ultimate goal is to eliminate fossil fuels..

    That's a lie... you repeat that lie a lot too. It's still a lie and shall remain a lie.

    Yea.. THAT'S gonna sit well with Texans.. :^/

    Now you're going to claim what does and does not sit well with Texans! Shove off, moron. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Texas will flip... it's not a matter of "if" it will flip; it's only a matter of "when" it will flip.

    What you seem blissfully unaware of is that Texas doesn't have to flip in 2020 to be a success... Nope! Texas just has to cost the spineless GOP bastards a whole lot of millions that could have been better spent elsewhere in order to be a success.

    And their blatant and emphatic stance on that, recorded for posterity, will eliminate ANY possibility of the chosen one being able to walk it back for the General election..

    You're an idiot, Mike... a perpetual dumb effing idiot. It's just that simple.

Comments for this article are closed.